Originally Posted By: jremas This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Are outlets that supply power to individual appliances such as a freezer in a garage required to be single receptacles even if they are located behind the appliance and are not “readily accessible”? Can they be duplex receptacles and still meet the exception for non-gfci protection?
this should be a one word answer............
--
Jeff Remas
REMAS Inspections, Inc.
Northeastern PA & the Poconos
www.NEPAinspector.com
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Yes, I know …
He did ask for a one word answer, so I gave one for the first question ...
[Couldn't resist Jeff, and was thinking you would ponder that one for a while ... but Jerry was on that like a Hobo on a Ham Sandwich ... hats off Jerry ... so let me clarify, "no" to the original question as I posted, and "yes" to the follow up question ... ]
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: Bob Badger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jremas wrote:
Are outlets that supply power to individual appliances such as a freezer in a garage required to be single receptacles even if they are located behind the appliance and are not "readily accessible"?
No
jremas wrote:
Can they be duplex receptacles and still meet the exception for non-gfci protection?
Yes
(If the conditions of question one apply to question two) 
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
The NEC is a restrictive code, and not a permissive code. If there is not a clear restriction, then it would be allowed. What section would you quote on writing up any type of duplex behind a garage freezer?
[P.S. About the second part of the question I'm assuming only an individual freezer plugged into a non-GFCI duplex behind it ... I think Mike read that a little differently.]
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Actually, #2 does not “say” that.
Exception No. 2: A single receptacle or a duplex receptacle for two appliances located within dedicated space for each appliance that, in normal use, is not easily moved from one place to another and that is cord-and-plug connected in accordance with 400.7(A)(6), (A)(7), or (A)(8 ).
It "says" that you can have "A single receptacle or a duplex receptacle", and it "says" that the receptacle is to be "located within dedicated space for each appliance". Thus, a duplex behind one appliance is not within the dedicated space of the other appliance, thus, there could be a duplex behind each ... well, sort of ... because it also says "or a duplex receptacle for two appliances" ...
Whoever said the code was easy.
You can't, but you can, except that you can't, but it says you can, maybe.
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I think the real sticky part is about receptacles being “readily accessible”, unless it’s some kind of built-in freezer with a dedicated space (like a kitchen refrigerator). The next homeowner could come along and rearrange things, and you might end up with an unprotected receptacle that is readily accessible …
Not so easy as a simple yes/no answer after all ...
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: jremas This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
See how great this is! All of us see it differently and each and every day there are electrical inspectors, home inspectors and electricians “butting heads” about different interpretations concerning the code. Who is right??
I bet we could probably pick apart and have different interpretations about every single section of the NEC. Especially the ones that have been referred to by other sections.
--
Jeff Remas
REMAS Inspections, Inc.
Northeastern PA & the Poconos
www.NEPAinspector.com
Originally Posted By: Bob Badger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jremas wrote:
I bet we could probably pick apart and have different interpretations about every single section of the NEC.
I would say that is a safe bet 
Here is the NEC definition of readily accessible
Article 100
Quote:
Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible). Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable ladders, and so forth.
Now the article in question says not Readily Accessible
All it would take to make something "not readily accessible" is any one or more of the following.
1)climb over
2)remove obstacles
3)resort to portable ladders
4)and so forth.
Clearly a an outlet behind a refrigerator is in NEC terms not readily accessible.
At least clearly in my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. 
Mike if you say that a refrigerator does not make equipment "not readily accessible" would you allow a motor disconnect switch behind a refrigerator?
Originally Posted By: rmoore This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
How about reporting it in the following manner…
?The duplex receptacle located behind and serving the freezer in the garage is not GFCI protected. Should this freezer be moved or removed and the receptacle made accessible then;
(A) it should be replaced with a single receptacle serving only the freezer.
OR
(B) GFCI protection should be provided for this receptacle.?
-- Richard Moore
Rest Assured Inspection Services
Seattle, WA
www.rainspect.com
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jremas wrote:
I bet we could probably pick apart and have different interpretations about every single section of the NEC.
I agree with you and Bob. There are a lot of clear provisions in the codes, but some could be debated until the cows come home (check out a few of the codes discussion boards).
jremas wrote:
Who is right??
The AHJ is "right" (unless you can convince him/her otherwise or appeal a decision) ...  ... There is a lot of truth in the old saying ... "the code is not what is written in the book ... the code is what the building official says is written in the book" ...
But I think from an HI point of view that while a non-GFCI behind a refrigerator in a garage or unfinished basement may not be a safety hazard looking at current model codes, in my mind it's something to list as a concern or make a note about. When the next homeowner moves in, that receptacle may end up being "readily accessible"
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: jremas This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
In my opinion if acting as a AHJ (and i will be in my state shortly), I would not have a problem with a duplex behind a refrigerator or a freezer in a garage or basement.
Personally, if when doing electrical work I do not know where the homeowner will be placing storage items and appliances of that nature, then they will ALL be GFCI.
I have always installed single receptacles in cases where the location is known and when questioned by the owner, I told them I had to just so there was NO question.
No splitting hairs anymore...
--
Jeff Remas
REMAS Inspections, Inc.
Northeastern PA & the Poconos
www.NEPAinspector.com
